1 Introduction

Globally, 250–300 million people have been displaced during the last 20 years due to development and related issues (Kaida & Miah, 2015). In India, an estimated 60 million people were displaced or affected by development projects in the last 70 years after independence (Srinivasan & Nuthalapati, 2020). By 2030, while urban expansion across the world is expected to increase by 1.2 million km2 (World Bank, 2023), in developing countries like India, the rate of urban expansion is estimated at approximately 31.8% (Shahfahad et al., 2021). This urban expansion necessitates the transformation of agricultural land into non-agricultural land use (Kumar et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2009); in India, 25 million hectares of arable land have been acquired so far (Mathur, 2013). Such expansion will put additional pressure on land and natural resources, transforming rural/ agricultural land into urban and leading to displacement, land loss, and loss of livelihood for farmers (Huang et al., 2017).

Further, displacement and resettlement caused by development projects is a critical issue in today’s pace of development (Bennett & McDowell, 2012; De Wet, 2009; McDowell, 1996; Neef & Singer, 2015; Vandergeest et al., 2007). The displaced population in India prompted significant social, economic, cultural, and political instability identified by a few researchers (Sengupta & Bandhopadhyay, 2016). Moreover, Cernea (2000) identified eight impoverishment risks and also suggested an impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) model, where ‘loss of livelihood’ is the most emphasized issue found by the researchers (Al Atahar, 2014; Awazi & Quandt, 2021; Degert et al., 2020; Diwakar & Peter, 2016; Fujikura et al., 2009; Hattori & Fujikura, 2009; Ogwang & Vanclay, 2019) in the field of development-induced displacement and resettlement; yet, none of the studies focused on the urban development projects.

While livelihood is ‘capabilities, assets (including physical and social resources) and activities required for a living’(Erenstein et al., 2010; Quandt, 2018; Scoones, 1998), livelihood recovery interventions (LRIs) are a variety of focused initiatives and programs executed to restore, strengthen, and enhance the livelihood of the affected people. The concept of LRIs is majorly used in post-natural-disaster (Gyawali et al., 2020; Islam & Walkerden, 2022; Lawther, 2016; Pu et al., 2021; Raut, 2021) post-conflict among the countries (Majidi & Hennion, 2014), poverty alleviation (Dai et al., 2022), ecological factors/climate change (Liu et al., 2020b; Nasrnia & Ashktorab, 2021), and other development (Dam construction) projects (Tran, 2017). Yet, none of the studies focused on livelihood recovery interventions while considering the urban development project (Adam et al., 2015) affecting rural households. Most of the studies focused on the livelihood strategies followed by the affected households (Islam & Walkerden, 2022; Raut, 2021) to recover their livelihoods. Some authors, Tafti and Tomlinson (2015), identified the best policy in practice based on the primary and secondary data.

In this connection, Huang et al. (2018) indicated that government institutions play an essential role in determining policy preferences for restoring livelihood. De Wet (2006) further identified the requirement for more studies explaining the dynamics of the resettlement process to formulate strategic planning and management. Additional evaluation and improvement of the intervention and recovery framework are required (Lawther, 2016), especially for developing countries. A lack of studies has been focused on the livelihood recovery interventions (LRIs) manifested by the institution for the affected people (Joakim & Wismer, 2015; Pu & Chang-Richards, 2022).

In the development context, livelihood recovery refers to how well displaced people can adjust to their new living spaces. Whereas livelihood resilience is the mechanism through which households and communities respond to, recover, learn from changes and disturbances, and transform their livelihood patterns to adapt to changes and challenges (Nyamwanza, 2012; Sina et al., 2019). The livelihood resilience mechanism following the shock, like an urban development project, is more complex than the natural process of growth and development (UNISDR, 2009; Zhang et al., 2018). Early livelihood recovery enables affected people to continue their prior social and economic activities and promotes long-term reconstruction and growth (Régnier et al., 2008; Sina et al., 2019). Because an adequately designed recovery intervention can restore livelihood resilience (Gyawali et al., 2020). Previous studies have focused on providing livelihood resources rather than the interventions relevant to livelihood recovery (Tran, 2017). Only a few researchers (Nikuze et al., 2019; Tran, 2017) have emphasized the mechanism for livelihood resilience in the context of development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR). However, none of the studies was found to focus on the urban development projects affecting rural households for livelihood recovery and resilience.

Further, none of the studies focused on the institutional/government perspective for LRIs. Hence, with the help of the knowledge and experience of the experts, this research aims to identify appropriate LRIs that can be adapted for livelihood resilience for the people affected by urban development-induced rural displacement and resettlement (UDIRDR) projects in India. The consecutive section introduces the material and methods used in this study, followed by the result and discussion, and thereafter, the last section elaborates on the conclusions.

2 Material and methods

2.1 Identification of LRIs and livelihood resilience mechanism

The lack of focus on the LRIs and livelihood resilience in the case of urban development projects takes this study to the fragile theoretical background for acquiring the appropriate list of interventions. Hence, this study has identified a set of LRIs based on the precedent studies related to livelihood recovery for the people of the rural area from the literature and other relevant context-specific LRI from focus group discussion (FGD), in-depth interviews with the officials, and observation on the field in Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (NRAN), designed as a new upcoming city in Chhattisgarh, India.

2.1.1 Selection of LRIs and mechanisms through precedent studies

By using the keywords ‘urban development’, ‘resettlement’, ‘displacement’, ‘rural development’, ‘livelihood’, ‘livelihood recovery’, ‘interventions’, and ‘livelihood resilience’, this study investigated literature from 2000 to 2023 and searched for various interventions and mechanism employed in the previous studies. The study aims to examine the livelihood affected by urban development projects and identify recovery interventions. Nevertheless, there is a lack of studies that specifically address this issue. The selection and identification of the LRIs in the study were fully receptive. Fifteen primary mechanisms for livelihood resilience and sixty-one recovery interventions have been identified from the literature.

2.1.2 Observation, focus group discussion (FGD), and interview with the officials

Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (NRANVP) was approached to collect information about the displaced and resettled villages. The development of NRAN started in 2006, and for this purpose, sixty-one villages were identified for displacement and resettlement (NRANVP, 2006). The project's first phase was completed for those fourteen villages displaced completely, and eighteen villages were partially displaced. A non-random sampling was used to choose the villages from the list of villages provided by the NRANVP.

Firstly, in-depth interviews with the officials of NRANVP were managed, and preliminary observations of the field were carried out to understand the scenario. A semi-structured questionnaire was prepared for the in-depth interview with the officials. It included questions related to the project planning, management, implementation, various impact assessments, amenities provided for the resettlers, restoration of livelihood, grievances redressal technique, and appropriate suggestions from their side. During this period, two officers shared their views. Thereafter, focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with the affected people.

FGD is an in-depth interview on a specific issue in which the members are well-versed in the subject and at ease discussing with each other and the moderator (Muhuri & Basu, 2018). FGD is considered an appropriate instrument for gathering in-depth information to understand user perspectives and identify certain context-specific statements (Muhuri & Basu, 2018). Figure 1 represents the participants of one FGD group of Nawagaon (Khapri) who were displaced and resettled in the Government-designated residences, and the FGD was conducted under a tree (Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Example picture of FGD participants (a) and choupal as venue of FGD (b), Nawagaon (Khapri) village

Full size image

The questionnaire for FGD was prepared in a combination of structured and open-ended questions. The structured portion contained socio-demographic and open-ended questions designed to attain in-depth qualitative information regarding the impacts of development projects on their livelihood. Participants for the FGD were selected either because of their involvement in the development project or their availability during the survey. The moderator asked the questions in the local dialect/language for better understanding and comfort for positive responses from the HHs. To avoid any misguiding/offending/biases, the FGDs were conducted on the same day of introduction, without prior information given to the villagers but with the consent of the Sarpanch (Village leader). Each FGD continued for 90–120 min, and the discussions were audio-recorded. Table 1 illustrates the statements of the participants and the LRI derived from the FGDs. Eleven LRIs were obtained from the field observations, in-depth interviews, and FGDs.

Table 1 Illustration of the identified LRIs from the FGDs
Full size table

2.1.3 Coalesced of LRIs under the livelihood resilience mechanism

In the absence of adequate studies on urban development-induced displacement and resettlement, studies on the livelihood resilience for resettlement caused by poverty alleviation (Li et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2020b), ecological factors/climate change (Liu et al., 2020b; Nasrnia & Ashktorab, 2021), and other development projects (Tran, 2017) are considered. This research also considered the theoretical background (Van der Ploeg & Vanclay, 2017, 2018) and other frameworks for measuring livelihood resilience (Quandt, 2018; Speranza et al., 2014) that can be relevant to urban development. From the recommendation and suggestion of these studies, seventy-three LRIs (from literature review and field visits) have coalesced into fifteen identified livelihood resilience mechanisms (Table 2).

Table 2 LRIs and mechanism obtained from the literature review and onsite interview, FGD, and observations
Full size table

2.1.4 Questionnaire development

The identified livelihood resilience mechanisms were utilized in the format of questions, and specific LRIs were provided as the option to attain resilience through the consensus of the experts. The questionnaire was transformed into a web-based platform and written in English. The questionnaire was designed on a 5-point Likert scale (5—strongly agree to 1—strongly disagree) to attain the agreement of the experts. The questionnaire was pilot-tested by three local experts for clarity and consistency and then updated as per their advice. After selecting the list of LRIs and mechanisms, the designed questionnaire was sent to the experts, inviting their opinions through the Delphi technique and ensuring more add-ons from the experts.

2.2 The DELPHI technique

The Delphi technique is a systematic way of acquiring and collecting detailed opinions from a group of experts on a specific area of study (Heiko, 2012). This technique allows the participation of geographically distant specialists in the process and increases the external validity of the scenarios (Perveen et al., 2017). Delphi assures expert anonymity, which ensures that the results are not biased due to the dominance of a particular group or individual. Rather than depending on the opinion of a single expert, the group consensus approach is more reliable, as ascertained by the researchers (Chakraborty & Mishra, 2013).

The primary objective of this step of the research process was to take opinions from the experts to harness and strengthen the identified recovery interventions. The identified interventions are legitimized and critically reviewed to ensure that they reflect a varied range of perspectives on livelihood resilience during the pandemic (COVID-19); with the advancement of computer-based communication technologies, Delphi offered significant potential for enhancing consensus-building (Perveen et al., 2017).

2.2.1 Identification of experts for the Delphi technique

In a Delphi technique, identifying relevant experts is critical for getting a comprehensive cross-sectoral opinion on the relevance of interventions (Perveen et al., 2017). Previous research (Anisurrahman & Alshuwaikhat, 2019) has emphasized integrating a comprehensive array of opinions to minimize deceptive consensus amongst like-minded specialists. Experts from various cognitive and functional backgrounds help to determine the broad spectrum of opinion to understand varied perceptions in evaluating the interventions.

A thorough review of professional profiles was conducted to compile a list of Indian experts from the academic and professional disciplines of the relevant field. Thirty-two experts were identified and divided into four categories: architect practitioners, planner practitioners, academician planners, and other related professionals (geographers, sociologists, economists, and psychologists) who have already worked in the field. This study mainly focused on the Nava Raipur region and its surroundings to ensure that people have adequate contextual information about the region: West Bengal, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Madhya-Pradesh. A comprehensive collection of information and opinions from a multidisciplinary expert panel improved the outcome of the Delphi. Experts were invited to participate in the online survey from October to April 2021–2022. Reminders were sent to the invited experts three times to complete the survey. A higher rate of experts’ participation from diverse expertise and knowledge provided valuable input and critical insight into the selection process.

2.2.2 Data collection procedure for the Delphi technique

The Delphi was conducted in three rounds. A web-based questionnaire was sent to the thirty-two experts through their e-mails and text communication apps. The round-1 questionnaire was sent in October 2021. One week later, experts received a request e-mail to complete the form. After three reminders till December 2021, twenty-two of thirty-two experts responded positively for round-1, yielding a 71% response rate. The analyzed questionnaire of round-1 with results was again sent to the 23 experts who responded in round-1 in January 2022. After analyzing the responses of the first and second rounds, the third round of questionnaires was sent again in March 2022. In each round of Delphi, experts were given 3 weeks to complete the questionnaire and modify their earlier opinions based on the results of previous rounds. Experts who did not respond received request reminders to attain a 100% response rate for the second and third rounds.

2.2.3 Delphi round-1

For round-1, experts were invited to give their preference on identified recovery interventions (from the literature and field study) on a five-point Likert scale and their suggestions for inclusion in the list of LRIs (Table 3). For suggestions, open text box questions were provided as ‘Any other (Please Specify)’ in round-1.

Table 3 Example questionnaire format for Round-1 Delphi technique
Full size table

2.2.4 Delphi round-2

The twenty-three experts who responded positively in round-1 were requested to participate again in round-2 of Delphi. A revised questionnaire containing additional LRIs, identified from round-1, as ‘social infrastructure like schools, health facilities’, ‘relation between the local level policy implementation and mainstream Government policy,’ ‘involvement of women in education sectors’, ‘better regional connectivity and market link’, ‘strong financial institutions’, etc. (Table 4), was sent to the experts. Experts were asked to assess the significance of the seventy-three LRIs for livelihood resilience mechanisms along with seventeen new LRIs identified from round-1. The round-2 data analysis necessitates one more round of the Delphi to validate and authenticate the obtained LRIs to attain livelihood resilience.

Table 4 Example questionnaire format for Round-2 Delphi technique (Suggestions from round-1 added in the questionnaire)
Full size table

2.2.5 Delphi round-3

The questionnaire for Delphi round-3 contained the result of round-2 (Table 5). Each participant was asked again to complete the questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale.

Table 5 Example questionnaire format for Round-3 Delphi technique
Full size table

2.3 Data analysis procedure

Data collected in each round were analyzed to summarise the ratings and suggestions for appropriate LRIs for livelihood resilience. The analysis was done for each round of Delphi by using SPSS version 24. The median score for consensus was identified for each round as suggested by the researchers (Muhuri & Basu, 2018; Perveen et al., 2017), and the amount of dispersion on the rating was calculated using an interquartile range (Hasson et al., 2000; Schuckmann et al., 2012). We have selected an LRI; if the median value was more than or equal to 4 (Baumfield et al., 2012), the interquartile range (IQR) was less than 2.5 (Giannarou & Zervas, 2014). The percentage of preference in the top two bands (rank ‘4’ and rank ‘5’) was equal to or greater than 70 as an aggregated average preference after round-3 (Muhuri & Basu, 2018; Verhagen et al., 1998). However, before achieving consensus, a pairwise comparison was conducted. The step-by-step procedure for the Delphi technique for experts' opinions and consensus built-up is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Step-by-step procedure of the Delphi Technique

Full size image

2.3.1 Pairwise comparison and validation of data

Before the inferential statistical tests, Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests were performed to test the normal distribution of the data set (Cleff & Cleff, 2014). Since the obtained data were not normal, the Wilcoxon Paired Signed Rank Test was performed to identify (i) the difference between opinions of round-1 and round-2 and (ii) between round-2 and round-3 (Table 6).

Table 6 Example results of the Wilcoxon paired rank test (Z- test) for round-1 versus round-2 and round-2 versus round-3
Full size table

With reference to Carbno (2007; pp. 691), differences between opinions in various rounds were considered significant when the probability measure was below 5%, i.e. p value < 0.05. Table 6 represents the example result; out of eighty-six LRIs, eight resulted in a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the experts' opinions in round-1 and round-2. Further, for round-2 and round-3, only three LRIs resulted in significant differences in experts' opinions for each LRI.

Although there are significant differences in experts’ opinions between round-2 and round-3 at the individual level, as expected, there is not much difference in the variable-wise opinion of experts, as shown in Table 6. Henceforth, no successive round of Delphi was conducted to build consensus.

2.3.2 Consensus built-up

Table 7 provides an overview of obtained results from the descriptive analysis (Median, IQR, and aggregate preference percentage) from the agreement level responded by the experts in each round of the Delphi.

Table 7 Example results of analysis of round-1, round-2, and round-3 Delphi
Full size table

The experts rated eighty-six livelihood recovery interventions (LRIs) listed under fifteen livelihood resilience mechanisms in the final round of Delphi. According to the consensus criteria in round-1, round-2, and round-3, none of the interventions achieved the strongly agreed consensus level (rank ‘5’). Since outcome variations were observed across rounds, the aggregate preference percentage was used to calculate the final selection results (rank ‘4’ and rank ‘5’). Thirty-one LRIs have been found to have more than 90% average aggregate preference percentage in three rounds and thus can be considered as the essential interventions (Coloured cells in Table 7). Four LRIs were considered not relevant for this case as they did not fulfil the consensus criteria (average aggregate preference percentage is less than 70%).

3 Results and discussion

3.1 The outcome of the study

This study employed the Delphi technique to identify the essential LRIs to attain livelihood resilience in an Indian context. Out of eighty-six, thirty-one LRIs were identified as essential, with more than 90% aggregated preference. These LRIs must be prioritized during planned urban development projects. Table 8 represents the essential livelihood recovery interventions for livelihood resilience from the consensus of the experts.

Table 8 Essential livelihood recovery interventions for livelihood resilience
Full size table

For example, the ‘Informative approach (clear knowledge of the project before resettlement)’ and ‘positive coordination between villagers and institution with time-to-time grievance redressal’ are found to be the essential interventions for the win–win solution. Perera (2014)also identified similar requirements of formal grievance redressal mechanisms for affected people and their participation in converting the disaster into an opportunity. Further, Gyawali et al. (2020) highlighted that the participation of stakeholders in the reconstruction and livelihood intervention processes is essential for sustaining livelihood recovery. We have identified that the ‘consent of the majority of the villagers at the beginning of the resettlement project;’ is the essential intervention to handle the resistance/ protest created by the villagers or any community leaders during displacement. However, the ‘top-down approach’ mentioned by the officials during interviews was not selected by the experts as an essential intervention for win–win solutions. Although the ‘top-down approach’ (when implementation strategies are directly implemented on the people based on field knowledge) is easily applicable from the official point of view, that may lead to conflict if the opinions of the stakeholders are not considered.

Some LRIs for reconstructing social life, such as ‘community centre’ (for enhancing social activities), ‘open ground’ (multi-purpose and religious gathering places)’, and ‘enhancing the recreational activities’, were found relevant; yet none of the interventions were found essential in this case. In this connection, Baffoe et al. (2021) argued that social networks help increase employment opportunities and mitigate financial constraints in rural areas. The contrasting result of this research may be because the places of resettlement are nearby (within a distance of 2 km. in our case) from the original place of displacement. Further, the sense of community has not been disrupted because of a large number of people resettling together.

Another mechanism for livelihood resilience, reduction in outmigration of the resettlers, can be achieved through some essential LRIs like ‘provision of the convenience store or government stores for day to day basic requirements’, ‘small industry development’, ‘maintenance of the basic infrastructure facilities (house, safe drinking water, toilet, etc.)’, and ‘social infrastructure like school, health facility’. It implies better employment opportunities at the resettlement site, decreases migration to urban centres, improves household incomes, and enhances household livelihood resilience (Nasrnia & Ashktorab, 2021).

Empowerment of people in rural areas is an important and relevant way to attain livelihood resilience (Pandey et al., 2018). In this line, our research found that ‘Skill development and improving education level’, ‘formation of social groups’, like earlier research (Gyawali et al., 2020; Joakim & Wismer, 2015; Régnier et al., 2008) and ‘involvement of women in education sectors’ as a contextual LRI obtained from experts suggestions, are the essential recovery interventions for empowering women in resettlement sites. While actively providing training and financial resources, participatory groups can help improve economic conditions and promote gender equity (Gyawali et al., 2020). ‘Door-to-door information’, ‘strong local leadership’, ‘social group (self-help group)’, and ‘relation between the local level policy implementation and mainstream Government policy’ can empower the rural people. In this connection, FGD with the resettlers also reported that the power in the hand of the ‘Sarpanch’ or local leadership might understand them better and fulfil their requirements. Hence, Saeed Khan (2019) recommends that local interests and leadership of recovery initiatives be supported and encouraged for development policy and practice to be effective.

Moreover, to motivate the children for their studies after resettlement, ‘appointing a coordinator/councillor (observation) to be in continuous touch with the children and their parents’ and ‘door-to-door information’ is essential. The field observation and FGD revealed that the affected people do not have accurate information regarding government initiatives due to a lack of education; hence, a coordinator is required to provide accurate information. Further, we found that the lack of information among the resettles and demand for the requirement of ‘information regarding the legal and judicial support, and ‘awareness program’ (regarding explicit knowledge about the development project and benefits to future generations) is an essential livelihood intervention for livelihood resilience (Perera, 2014; Régnier et al., 2008).

For financial management, ‘loan facilities with subsidies’ can be beneficial, and thus, it is an essential intervention. In this connection, Gyawali et al. (2020) highlighted that financial support through loan programs plays a significant role in livelihood resilience and advancement. Moreover, researchers (Quandt, 2018; Tran, 2017; Yang et al., 2018) mentioned ‘agricultural development and intensification for resettlers as one livelihood resilience mechanism that can be achieved through ‘provisions for new tools and techniques’ and ‘better regional connectivity and market link’; these interventions are essential even in our case. One of the participants in FGD mentioned that “the Government has taken all of our agricultural land; we do not know what to do, where to go, and how to feed our family.” Another participant elaborates, “We only know farming, but now we do not have any work.” Therefore, ‘New tools and techniques for farming in urban areas will help them continue their agriculture practices and essential food requirements.

Additionally, for livelihood resilience, there are requirements of mediators, namely non-government organizations (NGO), local-level specific teams, educational and extension groups, and cooperative and vocational schools, that can help the affected families cope with the changing scenario of displacement and resettlement identified by various researchers (Nasrnia & Ashktorab, 2021; Singh et al., 2021), yet none of these are found essential in this case. This result may come from fear of delay in the development and implementation of the project, employing more mediators.

To enhance the adaptive capacity of the resettled villagers, ‘utilizing the available resources’ and ‘individual skills and past experiences’ are essential interventions. In this connection, Liu et al., (2020a, 2020b) found that households with professional skills, higher awareness, and greater information acquisition tend to shape livelihoods to be more resilient and make the affected people more adaptive. ‘Enforcement policies towards sustainable use of the natural resources,’ ‘provision of proper educational facilities for the children’(currently the fee structure is not affordable for the resettlers), ‘health care facilities’ (affordable health care facilities), and ‘strong financial institution’ are the interventions associated with the long-term strategies the government can adopt for achieving sustainability. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (2013) highlights the basic infrastructural facilities like schools as per the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) in the resettlement site. However, the Nava Raipur Atal Nagar villages have inadequate schools. The children need to travel more than 5 km to schools, and the fee structure of the schools in urban areas is not affordable for the resettlers.

Besides the above-mentioned essential LRIs, four LRIs do not reach the consensus with an aggregate preference percentage of less than 70%, namely: ‘Low rise high-density buildings around a courtyard’, and ‘Not more than 20 families in close proximity for reconstructing the social life’. ‘Appointment of the anthropologist as a counsellor to cope with the changing scenario’, and ‘Top-down approach (when implementation strategies are directly implemented on the people based on field knowledge)’ for a win–win solution. The LRIs may not be relevant in this particular case, yet these can be applicable in other cases and validated through large samples.

3.2 Limitations and strengths of the study

One of the novelties of this paper is identifying the LRIs for the resettlers affected by urban development-induced rural displacement and resettlement projects through the Delphi technique. Although the Delphi technique helped identify honest opinions free from peer group pressure (Lewis et al., 1999), this study invested more than 7 months (October 2021–April 2022) in gaining expert opinions. Since Delphi is a qualitative method, this research depends on convenience sampling to choose experts from a case-specific region. Yet, the resulting expert sample was well balanced, chosen from four categories: architect practitioners, planner practitioners, academic planners, and other related planning professionals. Rigorous search approaches and selection criteria were applied to reduce bias and clarify the selection of a final list of LRIs through multiple rounds of the expert survey. Despite that, more samples and cases can be identified in future for the generic application of the study.

3.3 The implication of the research

This research explores LRIs that can be adapted to attain livelihood resilience through an intense literature review and field study and validated and augmented through experts’ opinions. The results of this study may help to formulate recovery interventions for a man-made disaster like urban development-induced rural displacement and resettlement, through which livelihood resilience of the affected people can be achieved. It would also be interesting to replicate the current studies in other parts of the world to determine whether specific interventions are universally relevant for achieving the livelihood resilience of people in rural areas for urban development projects.

4 Conclusions

This research contributes to the knowledge of livelihood resilience by identifying LRIs for urban development-induced rural displacement and resettlement. Seventy-three LRIs under fifteen questions as a mechanism for livelihood resilience were identified from the literature reviews, observation, FGD, and interviews with officials. The suitability of these LRIs was tested through a three-round Delphi technique involving experts from specific regions considering the context. The results provide valuable insights for planners, professionals, and policy-makers in formulating appropriate recovery interventions that can simplify the difficult process of sustainable urban development.